NationStates Jolt Archive

Holy crap! Gas prices here in America are the highest every in history. Is it the same in Europe?

Accounting for inflation, they were higher in the 70's, I think.
But its just price-mongering, OPEC says "ZOMG! WE R RAZE TEH PRICE!" and suddenly gas (that has already been payed for, btw) jumps a dollar a gallon.
There are some things I dont like about capitolism >_<

Holy crap! Gas prices here in America are the highest every in history. Is it the same in Europe?
Ach quit whinging.

How much do you pay for a litre of petrol

We in the UK pay about 90 (which is about $1.40) for 1 litre....about $5.30 for 1 US gallon.

If my maths is correct.

Yeah, but until yours triple, you can't really moan about it. We're talking the equivalent of well over $7 per gallon over here.

We in the UK pay about 90 (which is about $1.40) for 1 litre....about $5.30 for 1 US gallon.

If my maths is correct.
It was 93p today, and the exchange rate is actually 1.81, so that's $1.68 for a litre. And if you're using diesel or special grades...LMAO you're fucked.

Accounting for inflation, they were higher in the 70's, I think.
But its just price-mongering, OPEC says "ZOMG! WE R RAZE TEH PRICE!" and suddenly gas (that has already been payed for, btw) jumps a dollar a gallon.
There are some things I dont like about capitolism >_<

It's not even capitalism; it's a classic example of a market failiure. Regardless of data (which has lowered oil demand), weather, fundamentals, or anything else, the price has gone up. The main reason is obvious: There is no reason for them to bid it lower, and they'll bid it up just high enough to maximize their profit but not cause a recession.

It was 93p today, and the exchange rate is actually 1.81, so that's $1.68 for a litre. And if you're using diesel or special grades...LMAO you're fucked.
93p?

Fuck me. Last time I filled up the car it was about 90. And I got the exchange rate the wrong way round....well, that makes about $6.40 for 1 US Gallon.

Taking. The. Piss.

OPEC actually has no control over the price any more.

They maxed out their production capacity last year, now demand has risen to a level where supply is only just keeping up, and there are worries it will rise further, with no expansion of supply possible. Thus the high price. OPEC can now only reduce the price by attempting to influence market mood by press release. There is no physical solution available, at least not at the supply end.

The effect of actual shortfall on the price is very non-linear...even a 1MB/d shortfall would cause the price to reach for the stars. And yes, it will happen eventually.

Holy crap! Gas prices here in America are the highest every in history. Is it the same in Europe?

Stop whining, It's American consumers/voters own *&@#! fault for buying those SUV's and electing a Congress/administration totaly hostile to fuel efficiency standirds. What you get is what you deserve...

(a caveman approches from Detroit) Bigger Better!

OPEC actually has no control over the price any more.
They maxed out their production capacity last year, now demand has risen to a level where supply is only just keeping up, and there are worries it will rise further, with no expansion of supply possible. Thus the high price. OPEC can now only reduce the price by attempting to influence market mood by press release. There is no physical solution available, at least not at the supply end.

The effect of actual shortfall on the price is very non-linear...even a 1MB/d shortfall would cause the price to reach for the stars. And yes, it will happen eventually.

The oil sands of Canada hold 316 billion barrels of oil; at 100 mln barrels per year, that's 3,160 years of supply. The current situation has nothing to do with supply; there's plenty of supply but they aren't drilling it because it's not profitable enough. Coal could produce an incredible amount more than that, and untapped reserves lie beneath the Gulf that are positively huge.

That is combined with obstructionism on new refineries and the difficulty of producing more refined products with flat capacity, and so the problem is clear. It isn't the raw materials that are making prices high, it's the amount of them we can extract that's doing it.

It's true, my dad's (Japanese) car does 50mpg...most Americans probably think that sort of fuel efficiency is in the sci-fi realm, the average over there has fallen to just under 20mpg. Probably the only industrialised country to record a fall in national fleet fuel efficiency, in the last quarter century. :rolleyes:

The funny thing is, so many Americans shout about the Freedom to drive what you want in a free market being really important, as if legislation establishing guidelines for fuel efficiency and administering massive tax penalties is in some way Communist...

The fact is, energy efficiency = energy security = national security. The EU is more than twice as energy efficient as the US, the benefit of that is not needing much in the way of a military and not having to do much in the way of fighting now and in the future, not to mention far greater stability in the face of any future economic crises (if Iran gets nuked, we won't be the ones to suffer).

I'm an American who rides his bike pretty much anywhere within ten miles.

I'm saving a lot of money. Don't bitch that you've allowed yourself to become dependent.

The oil sands of Canada hold 316 billion barrels of oil; at 100 mln barrels per year, that's 3,160 years of supply. The current situation has nothing to do with supply; there's plenty of supply but they aren't drilling it because it's not profitable enough. Coal could produce an incredible amount more than that, and untapped reserves lie beneath the Gulf that are positively huge.

That is combined with obstructionism on new refineries and the difficulty of producing more refined products with flat capacity, and so the problem is clear. It isn't the raw materials that are making prices high, it's the amount of them we can extract that's doing it.
The bit in bold is spot on. The rest of it is a bit flawed though.

- Whether you are referring to the Gulf of Mexico or the Persian Gulf, neither contains significant untapped oil resources. Just a few pockets on the lower limit of viability, adding up to a few dregs.

- Coal is indeed a significant energy resource, but not for transport fuel.

- The oil sands...LOL, it's a ridiculous stunt. I've read a lot about it, having a long-standing interest in the energy industry and energy systems, trust me, the promises being made for it will never materialise. That whole strip-mining operation, the largest in the world, produces about as much oil as a single largish field. To keep production flat, they have had to shut in hundreds of natural gas wells (energy which will then be impossible to recover, with knock-on effects for power generation) and are considering nuclear power plants to produce the steam necessary for the extraction. The energy payback on that is absurd, and if they want to end up with tar lakes visible from space, so prices can remain where they are right now, LOL, the world would laugh at their selfless generousity, and the Canadian population would lynch their government.

The funny thing is, so many Americans shout about the Freedom to drive what you want in a free market being really important, as if legislation establishing guidelines for fuel efficiency and administering massive tax penalties is in some way Communist...

The fact is, energy efficiency = energy security = national security. The EU is more than twice as energy efficient as the US, the benefit of that is not needing much in the way of a military and not having to do much in the way of fighting now and in the future, not to mention far greater stability in the face of any future economic crises (if Iran gets nuked, we won't be the ones to suffer).

I agree; frankly, I'd pay a tax to put price controls on fuel prices. We should also force companies to make more energy efficent vehicles; they should have an ultimatum: either make them more efficent or pay a fine twice what the cost of increasing efficency would be.

We need nuclear power, wind, hydroelectric, and solar power to get away from oil. All existing closed military bases should be remade in to new refineries.

Perhaps another middle term solution is to force companies to increase oil production to lower prices to some point X (which is equal to $35 dollars 2005 times the rate of inflation) or face a tax equal to the number of barrels consumed times the difference between the target price and the higher current price (lower prices would be a tax cut equal to the negative price difference). That money would pay for the subsidy from the government for price controls and for R&D in to alternative energy.

If you have a car with good MPG like 30 or 40.. congrats. If you have an SUV that has like 10 MPG.. you're really screwed.

- Whether you are referring to the Gulf of Mexico or the Persian Gulf, neither contains significant untapped oil resources. Just a few pockets on the lower limit of viability, adding up to a few dregs.

- The oil sands...LOL, it's a ridiculous stunt. I've read a lot about it, having a long-standing interest in the energy industry and energy systems, trust me, the promises being made for it will never materialise. That whole strip-mining operation, the largest in the world, produces about as much oil as a single largish field. To keep production flat, they have had to shut in hundreds of natural gas wells (energy which will then be impossible to recover, with knock-on effects for power generation) and are considering nuclear power plants to produce the steam necessary for the extraction. The energy payback on that is absurd, and if they want to end up with tar lakes visible from space, so prices can remain where they are right now, LOL, the world would laugh at their selfless generousity, and the Canadian population would lynch their government.

The amount in the deep Gulf of Mexico is simply unknown; however, they know Louisiana has 2.7 billion offshore by itself. The problem is, the people searching for the oil are the same ones that profit from these high prices, so they haven't put considerable effort in to searching for oil due to the conflict of interest.

I don't know about that; there has been a ton of investment and purchase in oil sands companies over the past few years, and the technology is improving. At present, they would be a fiasco; the energy costs are atrocious as you said. However, the technology is improving at an accelerated pace, so it seems these accquistitions are banking on a breakthrough in efficency and profitability in oil sands.

The same thing with coal to oil; it hasn't been invested in despite the existence of the technology for years (Germany did it in WWII), and it will cost money to make profitable; of course, there is that conflict of interest again which means this will be mothballed despite the possibility it has.

At the very least, huge tar lakes visible from space would be one hell of a tourist attraction

At the very least, huge tar lakes visible from space would be one hell of a tourist attraction
Mummy? Can we go to the Canadian Tar Lakes this year?

But sweetie, we went two years ago!

But they added a new one! (Big brown eyes)

OK, no promises, but I'll talk it over with daddy.

Well guys, I think China is starting to fell the pinch.. their demand is falling, and there are fuel shortages. We can absorb these prices and our economy is still booming... China is in trouble on the other hand...

The oil sands of Canada hold 316 billion barrels of oil; at 100 mln barrels per year, that's 3,160 years of supply. The current situation has nothing to do with supply; there's plenty of supply but they aren't drilling it because it's not profitable enough. Coal could produce an incredible amount more than that, and untapped reserves lie beneath the Gulf that are positively huge.

That is combined with obstructionism on new refineries and the difficulty of producing more refined products with flat capacity, and so the problem is clear. It isn't the raw materials that are making prices high, it's the amount of them we can extract that's doing it.
The only trouble tapping the Tar Sands is that with every ounce of oil you pump out, you force the water table to drop, turning Alberta (originally surveyed as 'semi-arable savannah' and originally recommended against agrarian development, btw) into desert. I'd hate to see the prairies go out that way. It's ugly and squalid and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone.

I agree; frankly, I'd pay a tax to put price controls on fuel prices. We should also force companies to make more energy efficent vehicles; they should have an ultimatum: either make them more efficent or pay a fine twice what the cost of increasing efficency would be.

We need nuclear power, wind, hydroelectric, and solar power to get away from oil. All existing closed military bases should be remade in to new refineries.

Perhaps another middle term solution is to force companies to increase oil production to lower prices to some point X (which is equal to $35 dollars 2005 times the rate of inflation) or face a tax equal to the number of barrels consumed times the difference between the target price and the higher current price (lower prices would be a tax cut equal to the negative price difference). That money would pay for the subsidy from the government for price controls and for R&D in to alternative energy.
Come on, when have price controls ever done anything but created more shortages? We need incentives to encourage new development, not taxes.

The only trouble tapping the Tar Sands is that with every ounce of oil you pump out, you force the water table to drop, turning Alberta (originally surveyed as 'semi-arable savannah' and originally recommended against agrarian development, btw) into desert. I'd hate to see the prairies go out that way. It's ugly and squalid and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone.

I wouldn't like it either, personally. That's why we need to do anything we can to get away from oil; in this unique case, let the oil companies be damned and do whatever is necessary to reduce our consumption of the stuff. The environment would sure benefit from getting rid of fossil fuels, amongst other benefits.

Come on, when have price controls ever done anything but created more shortages? We need incentives to encourage new development, not taxes.

There;s not much else we can do, because there is no incentive to increase production, and shortages will likely occur either way.

It's hard to consider oil a commodity any more. It's so vital to our current economic situation that it has to be kept affordable; it's the one time I veer from tax cuts and private development, because an oil shock hurts everyone and benefits almost no one.

I wouldn't like it either, personally. That's why we need to do anything we can to get away from oil; in this unique case, let the oil companies be damned and do whatever is necessary to reduce our consumption of the stuff. The environment would sure benefit from getting rid of fossil fuels, amongst other benefits.
Most "oil" companies are really energy companies. What kind of energy they produce is irrelevant, providing they can profit from it. They could brew biodiesel, except that it has a production cost that is an order of magnitude greater than petroleum diesel. We are certainly headed in the right direction with hybrids, but government action to discourage the use of petroleum based fuels isn't going to do anyone any good.

We are certainly headed in the right direction with hybrids, but government action to discourage the use of petroleum based fuels isn't going to do anyone any good.

The energy bill promotes the use of hybrids.. it doesn't discourage it..

There;s not much else we can do, because there is no incentive to increase production, and shortages will likely occur either way.

It's hard to consider oil a commodity any more. It's so vital to our current economic situation that it has to be kept affordable; it's the one time I veer from tax cuts and private development, because an oil shock hurts everyone and benefits almost no one.
What I meant by new development was that we should provide strong incentives to use alternate forms of energy. The tax code does provide some incentives and so do carpool lanes, but it isn't enough to get everyone to drive a biodiesel or hydrogen powered car. More work needs to be done in that area.

Just fixing the price will cause shortages at the outset and probably cause the oil refineries to shut down, if they can't make money at it.

It's hard to consider oil a commodity any more. It's so vital to our current economic situation that it has to be kept affordable; it's the one time I veer from tax cuts and private development, because an oil shock hurts everyone and benefits almost no one.

Actually our economy is less dependent on oil then it was thirty years ago when oil was much more expensive then it is now (inflation adjusted). I think we need to go for greater fuel efficency, not more production. We need to encourage the use of hybrids (and that is clearly highlighted in the president's energy bill).

Also removing taxes, or subsidising gas further to drive down costs will lead to supply discreprencies.. and shortages.

Americans can afford these prices. China cannot. I'm looking at falling demand in Asia and a slowing economy, thus slowing demand. I posted an article previously showing that production will grow by 20% by the year 2010.

Most "oil" companies are really energy companies. What kind of energy they produce is irrelevant, providing they can profit from it. They could brew biodiesel, except that it has a production cost that is an order of magnitude greater than petroleum diesel. We are certainly headed in the right direction with hybrids, but government action to discourage the use of petroleum based fuels isn't going to do anyone any good.

You're correct, but the current situation is not changing. No one is stepping up to promote tax cuts on increasing the efficency of biodiesel, or make it easier to build refineries; the tax cuts for hybrids is a good start, but the current situation is going to require real action to get things moving. Price controls and taxes should be used as a threat to encourage them to pursue energy efficency and increase production, but not as a standard practice. I should have clarified that:

These price controls/taxes are only imposed if they don't commit money to making these alternatives viable and increasing capacity. If they make an outstanding effort to improve energy efficency, they are rewarded with larger tax cuts.

Actually our economy is less dependent on oil then it was thirty years ago when oil was much more expensive then it is now (inflation adjusted). I think we need to go for greater fuel efficency, not more production. We need to encourage the use of hybrids (and that is clearly highlighted in the president's energy bill).

Also removing taxes, or subsidising gas further to drive down costs will lead to supply discreprencies.. and shortages.

Americans can afford these prices. China cannot. I'm looking at falling demand in Asia and a slowing economy, thus slowing demand. I posted an article previously showing that production will grow by 20% by the year 2010.

A reward/punishment system for advances in energy efficency is necessary to propel it, because there is too much conflict of interest in this case to keep it going. Bush needs to force his plan for converting bases in to refineries through by any means possible, and we need to drill more in the US.

China needs to slow growth, because a lot of the price increases are due to China. If they can slow growth down to a more reasonable level, that will buy us time. However, a Chinese oil shock might be negative because it will stoke inflation; they need to slow growth and cool prices in that order.

A reward/punishment system for advances in energy efficency is necessary to propel it, because there is too much conflict of interest in this case to keep it going. Bush needs to force his plan for converting bases in to refineries through by any means possible, and we need to drill more in the US.

Well the more refineries option is a possibility, however it isn't a good plan. We need to encourage greater energy efficency. Lets face it, in the past twenty years energy efficency has been vastly improved. That's why the economy has been able to absorb these prices. Demand at the pump has grown by +2.4% according to recent reports in the US. We need to slow our own economic growth too.

China needs to slow growth, because a lot of the price increases are due to China. If they can slow growth down to a more reasonable level, that will buy us time. However, a Chinese oil shock might be negative because it will stoke inflation; they need to slow growth and cool prices in that order.

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=119237&Sn=BUSI&IssueID=28145

Already happening.

"The IEA, adviser to 26 industrialised nations, revised down its prediction for 2005 oil use by 40,000 barrels per day to 320,000 bpd and knocked 20,000 bpd from its 2006 forecast.

Oil demand growth is now expected to average 4.9 per cent this year, down from a rapid 15pc last year.

Expectations that China will draw in much more of the world's fuel to feed its growing industries has contributed to a relentless rise in oil prices in the past two years.

"Demand is still strong within China but growth was exceptionally strong last year. That year-on-year growth is narrower is not a surprise," said Lawrence Eagles, head of the IEA's markets division. At the start of this year, the IEA was forecasting China's oil demand would grow 5.7pc."

The oil sands of Canada hold 316 billion barrels of oil; at 100 mln barrels per year, that's 3,160 years of supply. The current situation has nothing to do with supply; there's plenty of supply but they aren't drilling it because it's not profitable enough. Coal could produce an incredible amount more than that, and untapped reserves lie beneath the Gulf that are positively huge.

Yes clean coal, it's emissions will produce only butterflies and then we will have magical hydrogen cars any day now...... :rolleyes:

OMG! it's $1.02/Litre in where I live! :eek:

"We in the UK pay about 90 (which is about $1.40) for 1 litre....about $5.30 for 1 US gallon"

thats prolly why other countries drive such tiny cars with only a 4 or 3 cylinder motor. driving a lunchbox is fine unless you have 4 kids.

about a decade ago here in the USA there were cars that got 42mpg in town and 53mpg on the road...then they suddenly disappeared from the market. did the automakers reach a deal with the oil companies? i wonder. now its hard to find one that does better than 30mpg on the road,and those are tiny cars. something stinks about it all,and it aint the carbon monoxide. i know damn well we have the technology to get better gas mileage,but the car companies keep selling cars that peak at 25mpg...and they are not all SUV's either.

as for the supply and demand,most countries,not just the USA are using more gas and oil. oil is getting harder to find as well. our solution is the hybrid car and the hydro-electric cars. these cars are expensive right now and lack power on the road,but later models will improve with time. we are seeing a transition away from oil fuels(very slow one) so the oil companies are going to squeeze every penny they can while they have a chance.

for those that said "gas is higher over here,so stop whining" i have this to say: if they had risen the prices slowly over time,you wouldnt be hearing so much bitching,but the price of gas has skyrocketed almost overnight. it wasnt that long ago that you could still get gas in the midwest for $1.12/gallon. today the sign at QT said $2.25 for ethanol blend,which is the cheapest of the three types sold. premium was $2.45. in California,they already pay over $3/gallon. if the price of gas in the UK went from $1.45/litre to $2.90/litre in the space of a year or less you would be whining about it too. my last power bill for my house was $256 for one month,and that was with no central air and only one window unit operating.

and yes i agree,anyone who buys a big car or truck like a hummer or dodge durango and then bitches about gas is a fool....

about a decade ago here in the USA there were cars that got 42mpg in town and 53mpg on the road...then they suddenly disappeared from the market. did the automakers reach a deal with the oil companies? i wonder. now its hard to find one that does better than 30mpg on the road,and those are tiny cars. something stinks about it all,and it aint the carbon monoxide. i know damn well we have the technology to get better gas mileage,but the car companies keep selling cars that peak at 25mpg...and they are not all SUV's either.

Proof?

Because gas efficency has been improving steadily in the past ten years. i'd like to know what these vehicles were that got 42MPG/53MPG. I'd like to see them. Hybrid vehicles which are being released now are capable of 50MPG. Cars ten years ago with gas tanks were not capable of 50MPG. They never were.

these cars are expensive right now and lack power on the road,but later models will improve with time. we are seeing a transition away from oil fuels(very slow one) so the oil companies are going to squeeze every penny they can while they have a chance.

Hybrid cars are not that expensive (one is $26,000.. similiar price to many SUVs), and they do not lack power. It is as powerful as a regular gas car. I think you are getting confused with natural gas.

but the price of gas has skyrocketed almost overnight. it wasnt that long ago that you could still get gas in the midwest for $1.12/gallon. today the sign at QT said $2.25 for ethanol blend,which is the cheapest of the three types sold. premium was $2.45. in California,they already pay over $3/gallon.

Well we can absorb those prices in the US and have been doing so. It hasn't be overnight.. this has been in the works for two years now. In fact, I've noticed prices going up since then.